LAWS(HRCDRC)-2011-7-2

DEEPAK MALIK Vs. RAM LAL & ORS

Decided On July 12, 2011
DEEPAK MALIK Appellant
V/S
Ram Lal And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE called several times since morning but none put in appearance on behalf of parties. It is already 1.00 p.m. This appeal relates to the year 2005 but has appeared to argue the appeal on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6 are already ex parte. Heavy pendency of appeals/complaints as well as non -cooperative attitude of the parties/their Counsel is the reason for heavy cause list. Under these circumstances we do not think it appropriate to adjourn this appeal indefinitely and therefore we proceed to decide this appeal after hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and going through the case file.

(2.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 26.9.2005 passed by District Consumer Forum, Karnal in complaint No. 322/2003 whereby direction has been given to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to restore the electric connection in question in the name of the complainant on completion of required formalities and shift the same to Khasra No. 10/10 or any other Khasra number owned by them.

(3.) THE controversy involved in this appeal is with respect to the rights of the complainants and opposite party No. 4 in tubewell connection bearing account No. R -1/243. It is the case of the complainants that they have purchased the land wherein the above said tubewell is installed and as per sale -deed, they have become owners of the tubewell to the extent of half share. However, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have transferred the aforesaid tubewell connection in the name of opposite party No. 4 -Deepak Malik in connivance with the opposite party No. 3 -Veshanu Dass @ Vishnu Dass, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. It is further the case of the complainant that the opposite party No. 4 (appellant herein) has threatened them to shift the tubewell to some other land of his choice. The complaint on having been contested by the opposite parties, was accepted by the District Forum by issuing the directions noticed in the second para of this order.